Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Monroe Edwards/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2016 [1].

Monroe Edwards edit

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a forger, slave smuggler and general all around scoundrel. He came to my attention from George Wilkes, who is probably the author of the contemporary but highly-sensationalized account of Edwards' "exploits" in the mid-1800s. We've polished the prose, dug into every source that we could find, and then polished again. Initial polishing was done by Eric Corbett (talk · contribs), but John (talk · contribs) has helped a bunch also, along with assists from Karanacs (talk · contribs) for the background of Texas history. I present to you Monroe Edwards, another bad-boy, but this time a bad-boy American and not a bishop. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All sources appear to be of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited, and I note the following things:

  • I would add OCLC numbers for books where ISBN is not available.
  • In the Wilson citation, "Bartleby" should probably be in single quotes rather than double.
  • Welcome back and Happy New Year. I'll try to get back and do a full review but timing is uncertain.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Acdixon edit

Comments OK, a Kentuckian. I'm game. Lead:

  • I don't love the wording "who was the subject of a famous trial in 1842". First, "famous" is a bit subjective. I think "well-publicized" could be better. However, the whole phrase could probably be rewritten. Just saying he was the subject of the trial kind of makes the reader wonder if he was convicted or not. Also, the publicity derived, at least in part, from an all-star defense team, but that isn't mentioned here.
    • I've added "well-publicized trial and conviction" in place of "famous trial". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "swindle" is used pretty often in the lead. Maybe consider alternatives, since swindling isn't a specific crime like, say, embezzlement.
    • Varied.
  • "Convicted partly because of his good looks". I think this needs to be reworded. Maybe "Convicted partly because his distinctive good looks made him memorable and easily recognizable", or something like that. As worded, at almost reads as though the good looks were criminal or at least an aggravating circumstance to a crime! :)

Early life

  • "Edwards was born in 1808 in Danville, Kentucky." Note that Ms. Chapman Coleman's biography of John J. Crittenden says "Monroe Edwards was a Kentuckian, his parents were from Logan County, where he [Edwards] was born, and where Mr. Crittenden commenced the practice of law." (p. 97) I realize that, with few details of his early life, this will be hard to verify, but this could be an important detail, as Coleman says Crittenden agreed to defend Edwards because of his friendship with Edwards' parents, presumably formed during their mutual time in Logan County, which is, incidentally, a long way from Danville.
    • I wouldn't use Coleman's biography as a source for Crittenden's article, so I would also not use it here. To be honest, that's from 1873 - and outdated. If there was not other information on his birth location from more recent scholarship (i.e. the American Dictionary of National Biography article) then I might consider something from 1873 - but given the much more recent treatment that disregards Coleman's information, I am good with ignoring an 1873 biography. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if the more recent scholarship is definitive on the subject, I guess I'm OK with ignoring this. BTW, I did use Coleman's biography as a source in Crittenden's article, which is a featured article. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My view of the matter is: it depends. The ANB is good but by no means infallible (or even internally consistent), because they often rely on the same sources we do, and the authors, though of course expert in the field, are only human and have their own biases and prejudices and sometimes err. As for Victorian or later biographies, they are good for detail that later biographers gloss over, but I wouldn't trust them much on "big picture" since the picture has very much changed in a century. I'm going to duck out of this by saying the you guys know the sources better than me.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around 1822, Edwards was sent to New Orleans" By his parents, presumably?
    • None of the sources say who sent him. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to learn business from a Mr. Morgan, a merchant there". Simplify to "a merchant there named Mr. Morgan".
  • "but in 1823 Edwards' father moved to Galveston Island" Not sure how these thoughts are connected. If the younger Edwards was already away from home in New Orleans, why does this move by his father matter?
    • It was in the source but I agree it's not useful. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the late 1820s Morgan set up a trading post on San Jacinto Bay near Galveston." Which Edwards? Father or son?
    • Son. this should be clearer now that we've excised the mention of the father in the previous sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edwards was arrested in 1832 as part of the Anahuac Disturbances". Maybe add a descriptive phrase about these events, for those who are unfamiliar and do not click through.
    • Now reads "was briefly imprisoned along with others during the uprising against the Mexican government which ruled Texas."

Slave trading and forgery

  • How is the explanatory information about slave traders and indentured servants relevant to Edwards? The Mexican crackdown on long indentures happened in 1832 and Dart and Edwards' activities appear not to have occurred until 1835.
    • It was requested by a previous reviewer as background for people unfamiliar with the situation. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find it a little distracting, since it didn't have any material impact on Edwards' schemes. I'm going to leave this to see what others think. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's useful. I was unfamiliar with that myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused about the plot to discredit Dart and Texas. What was the nature of the plot? We know he obtained money under false pretenses, but what did he actually intend to do with it? Were the exploits in England also intended to gain money for this as-yet-unstated purpose, or were they not connected?
    • It's not clear why he did the efforts - it's just not given in the sources. Edwards is still a bit of a mystery in some respects. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's disappointing, as it would be interesting to know what he was up to, but it's understandable that it isn't in the sources. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the amount extracted from Lord Spencer given in pounds, but the amount of Edwards' defrauding of a Liverpool company in the next sentence given in (presumably) American dollars?
    • That's what my source used. Rather than try to convert I stuck with what the source gave as the amount. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there an accepted way to convert one to the other, accounting for the economics of Edwards' day versus ours? If so, it might be worth at least a footnote. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know of one - I had conversions in the article but was told that they weren't accurate for capital sums - so I'd be hesitant to convert this either. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider inflation templates useful. There's no meaningful way to translate values between era as much of what you buy has changed. My favorite example is that until WWI or thereabouts, even middle class families had hot and cold running servants, something impractical for most today.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final scheme

  • "Unluckily for Edwards" Is this editorial comment necessary?
    • NOt really but it's not like it's egregiously awful here either. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I typically wouldn't use something like this, but I won't quibble about it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't think of a good way to bridge between this sentence and the preceeding one without some sort of comment on the utter bad luck he had with this being caught - suggestions on better wording? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would be inclined to just drop the "unluckily" bit and begin the sentence with "In September", leaving the reader to decide what they think about his luck. I typically am a fan of "show, don't tell". Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trial

  • "media marvel" Is this the best term we can find?
    • I'm open to other suggestions. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is this a term in one of the sources, or one you chose? If the latter, in what respect are you considering it "marvelous"? That might help find a better descriptor. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I honestly can't remember if it came verbatim from the source, if I paraphrased it from the source, or if this wording is from one of the copyeditors along the way. I got the source through ILL so I'm not sure I can easily get a hold of it again. I probably copied the relevant sections (that's my usual practice) but we're packing to move and I have no idea where those photocopies might be lurking. The trial was very well covered in the newspapers - think of an early-day O. J. Simpson trial and that's the general idea you get from the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Understand about ILL. I run into that all the time. I think "media sensation" might sound better to my ears, but that's a style thing. Your call. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sensation works for me also - changed to that. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while it took place" Shouldn't this be assumed?
  • Maybe mention the Edwards' family's connection to Crittenden here.
    • None of the recent sources mention such a connection - if a recent biography of Crittenden does, then yeah, I'm good with it, but I don't trust a 1873 biography that isn't corroborated by more recent scholarship. (I'm a hobbyist genealogist and I'm well aware how often authors from the Victorian period got facts wrong.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the best modern biography of Crittenden (of which I'm aware) is Kirwan's John J. Crittenden: The Struggle for the Union, which doesn't mention the Edwards incident at all. (This in itself is a bit strange to me.) Still, Coleman's assertion seems to be at least plausible. Otherwise, what would motivate a sitting U.S. Senator – especially one of Crittenden's stature – to defend someone who seems to have been pretty obviously guilty? Also, Crittenden mentored Marshall, which would explain how he got involved. Finally, Coleman attributes the connection to William Evarts, another member of Edwards' defense team. Isn't all that worthy of at least a footnote? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, this comes back to not using an 1873 biography when there are more recent biographies available for Crittenden. If they don't mention Edwards' connection to Crittenden - we shouldn't use such an old source. Coleman is Crittenden's daughter but the information she's relaying about Edwards is related in regards to events over 20 years before and it's not clear where she got the information. She may be speculating on why her father took the case - and making up some sort of early connection. The fact that modern accounts of Edwards give a completely different county for his origin make Coleman's account much more suspect - Logan County is along the border with TN in the western part of Kentucky and Danville's up in Boyle County in the center of the state near the bluegrass. It's not a case of neighboring counties ... it's quite a distance. One thing I've noticed with Edwards' life - there is little family mentioned in connection with him - even the name of his father is unclear. It comes down to ... yes, if you wanted to use Coleman for color in Crittenden's biography, that makes sense - the daughter is going to have some comments on his character/appearance/etc that are relevant. But that doesn't make her not a problematic source for other people (I guess I should have said I wouldn't use her for a biography of Evarts - since I'm hoping you used her with Crittenden mainly as a daughter, and not as a historian.). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I'm trained in computer science, not history, so I'll defer to your judgment here, I guess, although if it were an article I were composing, I'd probably at least include it as a footnote, qualified with the appropriate reservations about Coleman as a source. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the mentions of Crittenden and Marshall's absence from Congress immediately follow mention of their presence on the defense team? Why interpose mention of Evarts?
  • "absented themselves" Is it common to use "absent" as a verb?

Legacy

  • "Melville has a character refer to Edwards and ask Bartleby, then imprisoned in the Tombs, if Bartleby is a "gentleman forger" like Edwards." I think "has" is a weak verb here. Maybe rewrite as "One of Melville's characters asks Bartleby, the imprisoned in the Tombs, if he is a "gentleman forger" like Edwards".
    • Yeah, that's a better wording, changed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The account, which was probably written by George Wilkes, is the fullest account of Edwards' life, but mingles fact with fiction to the extent that it has been listed in bibliographies of American fiction." Who opines that the work was written by Wilkes, and are there contrary opinions? Who lists the book as fiction? Does anyone list it as nonfiction?
    • I've not run across a person who disagrees with Wilkes' having written it - including several Wilkes' biographers. The other bit is from the ADNB and it isn't qualified by numbers - just a statement that it has been listed, not how many do so. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we're not aware of any dissenting opinions, is it necessary to qualify Wilkes' authorship? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the authorship was listed as not by him and I'm not aware that he ever did claim to have written it (and given it's rather ... sensationalist tone, I'd have wanted to avoid claiming authorship too!). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I wasn't aware of the nature of the piece, so that makes sense. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " a slave who loved Edwards and rescued him and followed him throughout his life" Rescued him when? How?
    • Not stated, as this is one of those legendary elements introduced into the story that has been disproven by historians. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the legend has been disproven, why isn't that mentioned (and cited) in the article? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The best way to describe this is Thompson's entry in the ADNB when discussing the whole work "The fullest account of Edwards's life is Life and Adventures of the Accomplished Forger and Swindler, Colonel Monroe Edwards (1848), written by an editor of the National Police Gazette, presumably George Wilkes. Its account of Edwards's criminal career is largely verifiable, but other aspects of the book led it to be included in Lyle Wright's standard bibliography of American fiction. It is the chief source for the romantic story of Kitty Clover, a beautiful slave who rescued Edwards from arrest in Texas and followed him devotedly through his later hardships and successes, until his arrest." I've read bits and pieces of "LIfe and Adventures" but it's ... wow. Very very early Victorian and very very much a pot-boiler with heavy romance elements thrown in. Kinda like a version of Uncle Tom's Cabin but with a forger as the hero instead. Since Thompson only mentions Kitty in the bottom where he discusses the Life and Adventures - and the Handbook of Texas doesn't mention her at all, I don't think it merits any mention beyond what's there. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • So no one says it is explicitly disproven; you're just making that inference based on its absence from more reliable scholarship? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, I make that inference here - I don't in the article, you'll notice. The statement about Kitty Clover is bare bones and reflects the secondary scholarship's mention of her (which is the mention I described above from the ADNB). She's not mentioned in any of the other secondary sources, which is why I don't think we need to go into the details of Kitty's story - the secondary sources don't. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know information is scarce, and some of these issues might not be resolvable. Just food for thought. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 02:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I"ve attempted to address most of these. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And ... I hope I haven't tread too badly on your Kentucky toes! It was a very strange subject for me to get interested in but .. interested I got. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Just making some comments for thought. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it appears no one else will weigh in on my concerns above, I will support this promotion. Don't want it to get snagged over those little issues, and I plan to be watching basketball this weekend rather than checking my Wikipedia watchlist. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most interesting. Just a few comments. Seems very well done.
" and partly from unique misspellings in his fakes" this is not supported so far as I can tell in the body. There is discussion of the misspellings but it is termed rather differently.
Changed to "partly from misspellings in his fakes" Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After his move" which one?
  • "He traveled to the United Kingdom," doesn't using letters of introduction to people in the UK already imply he went there?
  • I'm open to other wordings, but not sure how this can be changed... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sensationalist" might be OK without the ist
  • "Edwards was arrested in 1832 as part of the Anahuac Disturbances," was the arrest part of the disturbances or was it what he did?
  • It was part of the disturbances, at least as far as I can see. The arrests of people fed into the whole incident. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1829, Mexico had abolished the importation of slaves, but gave Texas an exemption from emancipating slaves who were already in the territory." banning the importation of slaves does not equal emancipation, so there's a bit of a disconnect here between the two parts of this sentence.
  • Karanacs provided this - it appears that not only was the importation of slaves abolished, but slavery itself was also, but Texas was exempt for a while. I've added in a source saying slavery was abolished in 1829. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the new Texas Republic eventually outlawed the importation of slaves from anywhere but the United States, Edwards' landing of slaves from Cuba in early 1836 was never prosecuted" unless the Texas constitution permitted ex post facto laws, I doubt it could have been on the fats given, so how is this remarkable?
  • It was a big point in the article - although I lived in Texas for 19 years, I never did study the history - but I know that whole issue of slavery in Texas was very fraught with legal difficulties - because Mexican law outlawed the improtation of slaves, I would assume that those laws were considered in force until superceeded? All I know is the point was made that he was not prosecuted even though there was some question he might have been, at least according to this source. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Republic of Texas ambassador in London" that was very advanced of Texas given that the US representative in London was not styled "ambassador" until the 1890s. Minister?
  • Source says "The Texas ambassador to England succeeded in discrediting Edwards with the British government..." It's even Oxford UP produced - (American Dictionary of National Biography). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two brokers – Brown Bros. & Co. and Jacob Little – gave Edwards bank drafts for $25,000[1] each. " I might add "New York" before "brokers"
  • You might want to mention one of the distinguished offices Evarts later held.
  • What was Edwards charged with? You never say.
  • Weirdly, no source gives the exact charge. They describe him as a forger, but the specific charge is not given in the ANB or the Handbook of Texas. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the imprisoned in the Tombs" I might change the first "the" to "when"
  • "and was known for his attempts to reform the treatment of the prisoners. Melville's narrator also tries to secure better treatment for Bartleby." I might change "reform" to "improve". And I'm not sure this parallel holds. Melville's narrator was Bartleby's ex-employer, who feels at least some moral responsibility for what has happened to Bartleby. Not true of Edwards.
  • I've never actually read Bartleby (or any Melville - I escaped it in school and it's never appealed) so this parallel is from the source. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Edwards and rescued him and followed him throughout his life. There are other accounts, including two anonymous accounts" serial "and"'s in the first sentence, accounts/accounts in second.
  • Now "who loved Edwards, rescued him, and followed him throughout his life. There are other accounts, including two anonymous narratives published in 1842." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn b: "slaving trip into Texas " surely into Africa? (note that as it stands, "Texas" is used three times in the sentence.
  • No, he was going to bring slaves from Martinique into Texas - have clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn d: " historical events narrated as contemporary" possibly "described" or "depicted" for "narrated"
Glad to have the opportunity to read it in detail. Looking forward to supporting once these matters are addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will work on these tomorrow...
So my weekend turned into a zoo. I've addressed these as best I can. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry about the zoo. Acdixon asked me to look at his points. I am traveling at present and so it may take me a day or two. Thank you for your replies.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm content with things as they stand. Sometimes you just have to make the best sense you can out of difficult sources. It's been done well, in my view. Congratulations on another fine article.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You don't need my help with prose, all things considered, but a support on prose might come in handy. I'm interested in the article because I think it would be great for April 1 of next year. Acdixon, how are you leaning on this one? - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: I suspect I will support. None of my outstanding issues is major, and I just struck a couple I should have done earlier, but I still feel the info from Crittenden's daughter might be worth a footnote. As Wehwalt didn't really have a strong opinion either way, I'm kind of still waiting to see if we get a third opinion on that, since I'm assuming we still need one more review for the article to pass anyway. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was insane at the time of his death": "insane" doesn't have any meaning that everyone understands the same, apart from "legally insane". If he hadn't been adjudicated insane, then it would be more helpful to say that he was delusional, or had been placed in restraints, or whatever "insane" means.
  • My source just says "violently insane". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber edit

Read this while on smartphone earlier. Looks good but one query - why is one mode of death in footnotes? Also I presume it is not given equal weight as it is less reliable - so maybe best to just say so...? Also agree with Dank that any more info on the insanity would be good...but then again I am a psychiatrist....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC) : This is a case of weight, yes. The beating story comes from the Handbook of Texas while the TB story comes from a peer-reviewed book by a university press. Handbook of Texas tends to be reliable for Texas events, but much more cursory about events outside Texas. Unfortunately, the American National Biography article just says "He died in prison." Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC) I'll try to get to these after the weekend. Spring here and trying to clean the barn up some. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "and partly from misspellings in his fakes" It is not immediately obvious why misspellings should help to convict him. Maybe "partly from making the same spelling errors in fakes and letters in his own name".
    • I went with "and partly from making the same spelling errors in his fakes" Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Herman Melville's work "Bartleby, the Scrivener"." I suggest "Herman Melville's 1853 short story, "Bartleby, the Scrivener"."
  • "San Jacinto Bay near Galveston" I would wikilink Gavelston and add "in Texas" for people unfamiliar with American geography.
  • "successfully smuggled slaves into Brazil." - was he evading a Brazilian law against slave trading or Royal Navy anti-slave trade patrols?
  • "Edwards was arrested in 1832 as part of the Anahuac Disturbances," "as part of" seems an odd wording - "for supporting (or taking part in)" the disturbances?
    • It's not clear that he was arrested because he was an active participant or if he was just rounded up because they arrested a bunch of gringos. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edwards' contribution was land certificates." I do not understand this.
    • He gave land certificates (i.e. something like bonds or stock certificates but instead they allowed the bearer to get so much land) as his part of the partnership. I've added "Instead providing money for the partnership, Edwards' contribution was land certificates." to make this a bit clearer. Merriam-Webster definition. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "establishment of the Republic of Texas" I would specify "independent Republic" for clarity.
  • "about $20,000,[12] and then used the funds to repay Lord Spencer" I would say "part of the funds" as he only had to repay £250. Also it does not sound right saying he was unable to raise funds when he had got $20,000.
    • Added "part of the funds" and went with "was unable to acquire more money in England" Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known how he was able to get such a high powered defence team?
    • No source really speculates - it is a bit of a mystery. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen these and will try to get to them tomorrow. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Monroe_Edwards/archive1&oldid=1109755637"